Quote from: Benoist;426103As it should be! I mean: I can hardly imagine how anyone could come up with some rules sub/system (whether as a house rule or printed material) and not care at all for statistical outcomes. That'd be the equivalent of walking in the dark, with the highest probability to crash into a wall at some point. Then you can't really be surprised you did.

You would be surprised - or maybe you wouldn't! - at how many designers have no clue about using statistics to predict and model.

QuoteI agree on principle as well. I mean, personally, as a player, I would make choices based on both what I as a player want and what my character wants. Sometimes the two will be perfectly in tune, and sometimes, they are going to clash, with the character's wishes winning most of the time (I'm thinking suboptimal tactical choices like here, for instance), depending on the situation. Though there are times (I'm thinking deeply disruptive stuff, here) where I as a player need to step in and make a choice to play my character some other way, as to not wreck the game. I don't see how that could occur with the choice between the types of dice proposed, but there you go.

I think what you are saying here is that if the difference is large enough, the player needs to step in and make sure the character - who just might prefer a banana to that .45 - makes the choice that won't make him a liability in the party; but if the difference is relatively minor, as in the current example, the player can allow the character to move as he would list. I agree entirely! Especially for those games where that sort of thing is important! In some games, of course - and here I am staring directly into the baby blues of Toon - the banana is the rational choice...

-clash

If I am playing the reckless dwarf barbarian with the great axe, I want the 2d6.  Because the rare opportunity to roll two sixes is worth it for that kind of character.

If I am playing the logical rapier wielding elf fighter, I want the 1d6+4.  Because the increased reliability of the damage fits better with the character concept for me.

Quote from: Mistwell;426121If I am playing the reckless dwarf barbarian with the great axe, I want the 2d6.  Because the rare opportunity to roll two sixes is worth it for that kind of character.

If I am playing the logical rapier wielding elf fighter, I want the 1d6+4.  Because the increased reliability of the damage fits better with the character concept for me.

I honestly can't get, for the life of me, what the spread of the damage dice has to do with the character concept. Better numbers equal more skill and luck, worse numbers, the opposite.

This thread is the first time, ever, I've heard anyone suggest picking a weaker damage spread to enhance their character concept.

I kind of see where you guys are coming from, I just don't see the point.

"Wow guy, you did 2 damage that strike and 12 the next! What flair!" Who would notice but you?

If you have armor that subtracts from damage, then that technically will make the 2d6 a little bit more attractive.  However, the extra +0.5 average of 1d6+4 basically counter-balances this.  

For example, let's say the opponent has armor that subtracts 9 from damage.  

2d6 does average 0.28 damage per hit.
1d6+3 can't damage at all.  
1d6+4 does average 0.17 damage per hit.  

If the opponent has armor that subtracts 6 from damage.  

2d6 does average 1.56 damage per hit.
1d6+4 does average 1.67 damage per hit.  
1d6+3 does average 1.00 damage per hit.  

On a practical note, you could make 1d6+3 more attractive by giving a minor extra effect if the player rolls maximum damage.  This is likely for 1d6+3, but rare for 2d6.

Quote from: Cranewings;426136I honestly can't get, for the life of me, what the spread of the damage dice has to do with the character concept. Better numbers equal more skill and luck, worse numbers, the opposite.

Strange. I have the opposite reaction, and entirely understand what Mark means. If you have a random spread of damage, this might indicate a more erratic, less precise, more blunt behavior, with a higher risk for different types of outcome, whereas a precise amount of damage might simulate some precision and care in the way the attack is carried out. So it totally can be part of role playing the character concept or emotion at the moment, in my mind.

Quote from: Cranewings;426136This thread is the first time, ever, I've heard anyone suggest picking a weaker damage spread to enhance their character concept.

That is even weirder to me.

Quote from: Cranewings;426136I kind of see where you guys are coming from, I just don't see the point.

"Wow guy, you did 2 damage that strike and 12 the next! What flair!" Who would notice but you?

Somebody needs to notice besides yourself for you to be actually role playing?

I'm role playing my characters' (PCs or NPCs) emotions silently in my head all the time!

The difference in the shape of the distributions (between a linear 5-11 or the v-shaped 2-12) may be important from a practical min/maxing perspective.
The raw average damage isn't as important as how many hits it takes to kill a monster. If most monsters have 12 hit points say, then the 2-12 might be better because you have at least some chance, even if its only 1 in 36, of popping the monster on the first go, even though the average damage is slightly lower.
But, if alot of monsters have 3 or 4 hit points, then 2d6 is worse since its not a guaranteed splatter vs. the goblins.
Of course you expect a range of HP totals, but which type is more common can still inform your decision.

If we compare 1D6+3 and 1D6+4 vs. 2D6...

How often does the 2D6 weapon do the minimum or less than the 1D6+X one?

How often does the 2D6 weapon do the maximum or more than the 1D6+X one?

AKA, we know the 1D6+3 does 9 points about 17% of the time and the D6+4 does 10 pts the same rate.   How often does the 2D6 weapon do 9 or more?  How often does it do 10 or more?

And we can look at the converse.  How often does a 2D6 weapon do 4 pts or less?  

Quote from: Benoist;426025If I can choose between 1d6+4 and 2d6 I'm going to take the former every single time.

How do you feel about 1D6+3 vs. 2D6?

Also, does your feeling change when comparing 2D6+3 vs. 3D6?  

How about 2D6+6 vs 4D6?

Quote from: The Butcher;426029But of course, IMHO, I feel that there should be more than flat numerical damage that makes weapon choice interesting...

YES!

I will be designing other aspects of weapons (accuracy, usefuless in variety of situations, etc), but at the moment I wanted to focus just on thoughts about the damage range.  Thus, if people are really down are D6+3 and thrilled with D6+4 vs. 2D6, that would tell me the D6+3 and 2D6 weapons need some sort of "boost" versus a 2D6 one.

Quote from: Cranewings;426136"Wow guy, you did 2 damage that strike and 12 the next! What flair!" Who would notice but you?

Why would I care what anyone else thinks?

-clash

Quote from: Benoist;426138Strange. I have the opposite reaction, and entirely understand what Mark means. If you have a random spread of damage, this might indicate a more erratic, less precise, more blunt behavior, with a higher risk for different types of outcome, whereas a precise amount of damage might simulate some precision and care in the way the attack is carried out. So it totally can be part of role playing the character concept or emotion at the moment, in my mind.

That is even weirder to me.

Somebody needs to notice besides yourself for you to be actually role playing?

I'm role playing my characters' (PCs or NPCs) emotions silently in my head all the time!

I agree entirely, in every way, with everything you have said here, Benoist!

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;426120You would be surprised - or maybe you wouldn't! - at how many designers have no clue about using statistics to predict and model.

I can't say I'm really surprised, but at the same time, that's just mind-boggling to me. I'm no math wizard (I'm not completely uneducated on the matter either - I was in Sciences in high school), but I can't for the life of me understand why a designer wouldn't care about statistics as far as dice outcomes are concerned.

As I said earlier about the 2d6 vs 1d6+N choice earlier, a strictly equal mathematical choice might not equal to a strictly equal choice in the context of the game, and there are indeed other considerations (human, tactical, RP and otherwise) you'd take into account for sure, but that shouldn't stop someone from looking at the basic mathematics involved.

Alright kidz, check my maths! (I am rounding up %)

AVERAGE TO HIGH END ROLLS

2D6
03% to get 12
08% to get 11 or higher
17% to get 10 or higher
28% to get 9 or higher
42% to get 8 or higher
58% to get 7 or higher

1D6+4
17% to get 10
33% to get 9 or higher
50% to get 8 or higher
67% to get 7 or higher

1D6+3
17% to get 9
33% to get 8 or higher
50% to get 7 or higher

LOW END ROLLS

2D6
17% to get 4 or lower
28% to get 5 or lower
42% to get 6 or lower

1D6+4
17% to get 5
33% to get 6 or lower

1D6+3
17% to get 4
33% to get 5 or lower
50% to get 6 or lower

SO....ANOTHER QUESTION....

Assuming a D20 style combat system, are these weapons balanced (all other factors being equal)

1) 1D6+4 weapon with a +0 Attack bonus
2) 2D6 weapon with a +1 Attack bonus
3) 1D6+3 weapon with a +2 Attack bonus

AND....EVEN ANOTHER QUESTION....

Do the math make sense with higher dice?  AKA, how does 2D6+6 compare to 4D6?

To answer the original question, as soon as you go with "all other things being equal", you have to go with the higher mean, d6 + 4, since you've got nothing else to go on.

Playing a game where all monsters have DR 10? Then 2d6 makes sense.

Playing a game where all monsters have 4 hp or less? Then D6 + 3 makes sense.

So answering most of your questions are about factors outside of just 'the mean'.

But, 2d6 +6 is 'worse', all other things being equal, than 4d6.

The mean of a sum is the sum of a mean, for independent variables like dice. The expected value of a d6 roll is 3.5, so all your questions can be answered (if you're only looking at the mean) by taking expected values.

Quote from: Benoist;426138Somebody needs to notice besides yourself for you to be actually role playing?

I'm role playing my characters' (PCs or NPCs) emotions silently in my head all the time!

Well, you can pretend anything in your head that you want. One of the main points of the rules and the dice and all that (at least to me) is to help everyone have the same thing in their head at the same time. The nuance of your character being unreliable at striking as demonstrated by rolling 2d6 instead of 1d6+3.5 for damage isn't going to be picked up on by anyone. It is completely trivial and no one is going to track or remember it.

The only thing anyone will remember about your character's damage is if he seems to kill quickly or not, if he is good at fighting or not. Picking something that causes him to take an extra round of hitting to make his kill will just make people think you suck, rather than convey the idea that he is (insert whatever 2d6 conveys over 1d6+3.5).

I don't really doubt that you guys really believe it helps you RP better, it just isn't something I've ever seen before this thread. If someone had a choice between doing 100 points every time they hit, or doing 1d100, everyone would pick 100 flat. Even if they wanted to play a wild and crazy guy, they would still pick the high flat number... they would just tell people he looks wild and crazy.

Quote from: flyingmice;426157Why would I care what anyone else thinks?

-clash

If you didn't care what anyone else thinks, you wouldn't bother describing anything about your character.

Telling people that you can prove with dice that he is an unreliable striker because he rolls 2d6 instead of 1d6+4 or whatever is so trivial, no one I've ever met would care or remember. You could automatically deal 7 very time and no one would care. If you said, "he may technically deal 7 every time, but he seems wild and crazy when he fights" then people will picture a wild guy. Modeling it with your damage dice is too trivial to matter to anyone I've ever met in real life.

Quote from: Spinachcat;426261Assuming a D20 style combat system, are these weapons balanced (all other factors being equal)

1) 1D6+4 weapon with a +0 Attack bonus
2) 2D6 weapon with a +1 Attack bonus
3) 1D6+3 weapon with a +2 Attack bonus

Depending on hit probability...if chance to hit is 50/50 (11+ on d20), then
another +1 attack bonus will increase your average damage by 10%.
For 2d6 that bumps your equivalent damage from 7 to 7.7, compared to 7.5 for the d6+4. Slight net gain, but nothing noticeable. The +1 to hit becomes more significant the lower your actual chance of hitting is, though.